Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Picketing Emanuel's home crosses the line

My pal Eric asked me Tuesday what I thought about the people who rallied outside Mayor Rahm Emanuel's home Monday evening to protest the proposal to close seven Chicago public schools and radically overhaul 10 more. We agreed: The protesters were out of bounds.... from Mary Schmich's column today.

Indeed I am the aforementioned pal, and indeed Mary and I were in agreement when we kicked this topic around in a conversation Tuesday morning. By the time she sat down to write, however, we were no longer in agreement:

By going out of bounds, the protesters are telling the power brokers in a palpable way: Your decisions about our schools affect us in our neighborhoods, in the privacy of our homes. See how it feels to have us in your neighborhoods, at your homes....

The protesters are rightfully frustrated that (Mayor Emanuel) hasn't talked directly with parents about their ideas and fears.

They're within bounds to do what they can, peacefully, to take their views directly to him...

(They) didn't violate the privacy boundary. They weren't violent. They came, they lit candles, they prayed. They left.

My view was and is that public officials and those whose work excites public controversy are entitled to maintain a reasonable separation between their public and private lives. It dangerously crosses an important boundary when we attack -- no matter how peacefully and prayerfully -- where our foes live rather than where they work.

Though Emanuel seemed to shrug off the protest, residential picketing is inherently intimidating if not threatening -- which is why it's long been a favorite tactic of anti-abortion activists.

One important aspect of residential privacy is protection of the unwilling listener. Although in many locations, we expect individuals simply to avoid speech they do not want to hear, the home is different. "That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech . . . does not mean we must be captives everywhere." Instead, a special benefit of the privacy all citizens enjoy within their own walls, which the State may legislate to protect, is an ability to avoid intrusions. Thus, we have repeatedly held that individuals are not required to welcome unwanted speech into their own homes and that the government may protect this freedom....

The type of picketers banned by the Brookfield ordinance generally do not seek to disseminate a message to the general public, but to intrude upon the targeted resident....Their activity....inherently and offensively intrudes on residential privacy. The devastating effect of targeted picketing on the quiet enjoyment of the home is beyond doubt...

The First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the "captive" audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech. The resident is figuratively, and perhaps literally, trapped within the home, and because of the unique and subtle impact of such picketing is left with no ready means of avoiding the unwanted speech

The case involved Brookfield's efforts to curb "up to 40 sign-carrying, slogan-shouting protesters (who) regularly converged on (an abortion-providing doctor's) home and, in addition to protesting, warned young children not to go near the house because (the doctor) was a `baby killer.'"

The justices in the 6-3 majority were careful to distinguish -- as the language of the disputed ordinance did not -- between general protest or picketing activity on public streets in a residential neighborhood and protests and picketing that targeted an individual residence.

Monday's protesters were certainly targeting Emanuel's house -- their choice to march down his North Side residential street was not a coincidence. And though the mayor wasn't even home at the time and, as Mary noted, the demonstrators were well behaved, didn't linger and may well have been legally "within bounds" I maintain they were crossing a important line that preserves civility and that they did violate the "privacy boundary."

Never mind whether or not you agree with the particular cause advanced Monday -- like Mary, I think the protesters have a point that the mayor is using a meat axe on certain school problems when a scalpel might do the trick and his team ought to get more input from parents. Do you really want protesters marching up and down on your street in front of your home disrupting your peace and freedom of movement simply so they can send a message to a public official, political activist, business leader or, hey, media figure who happens to live on your block?

Posted at 10:05:11 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Do you really want protesters marching up and down on your street in front of your home disrupting your peace and freedom of movement simply so they can send a message to a public official, political activist, business leader or, hey, media figure who happens to live on your block?"

Do I want it? No.

Do I consider it simply a de minimis price to pay so that citizens "can send a message to a public official"? Yes.

ZORN REPLY -- Two things, one, would you still be cool with it if your cover as "MrJM" were blown and protesters decided to hold 24/7 vigils in front of your home holding up critical signs about you?
Two -- The avenues for "delivering a message to a public official" or anyone else are numerous and will remain so.

I'm sympathetic to Mary's point, but I have to disagree with protesting in front of private residences. The parents are not protesting Emanuel's private life, but his public duties and positions. Such protests should be held where he performs these duties.

As for the reason the parents are protesting, what's behind it is that "transparency" you so crave in government dealings. The parents would like to hear why school officials take arbitrary actions that drastically affect their children, communities and the teachers of these schools. None of the above are part of/privy to the planning and decisions that are rattled off in press conferences with little if any explanations. This is far more serious than your concerns about transparent negotiations over labor contracts, as shown by the action these parents took.

--"Do you really want protesters marching up and down on your street in front of your home disrupting your peace and freedom of movement simply so they can send a message to a public official, political activist, business leader or, hey, media figure who happens to live on your block?"

Yes. We live in a time when politicans can pass the Patriot Act in, what less time than a Kardasian engagement, or locally do stupid things like the Parking Meter deal.

Being able to protest in the above form is one of the last freedoms we may have to voice our opinions and say "no, no, no Mr/Mrs clueless Politican, this really upsets us."

Emanuel doesn't listen or speak to us in his public sphere. He comes into OUR schools, declares them FAILING and in "need of turnaround" based on faulty and falsified (bad) information, and tunes out any voices that counter his pre-made decision.

I'll visit him in the shower if it meant he actually would listen for a few minutes.

1a) You do recognize the vast chasm that lies between the public roles of a) a blog commenter, and b) an elected official, right? (A more compelling argument might be, "How can you ever expect good citizens to run for public office if doing so requires that they expose their families to mobs of angry strangers outside their homes?" In fact, that argument is so compelling, I may have just talked myself out of my original position. "I am large, I contain multitudes!")

1b) Your reply is the first mention of "24/7" protests. I might have addressed that particular hypothetical if a) it reflected the facts in Mary's column, or b) you had raised it earlier. Nevertheless, let me take this opportunity to publicly and full-throatedly DENOUNCE any and all round-the-clock protests that have take place outside of people's homes. (And to PREnounce any such subsequent protests!)

2) Your enduring faith in the political power of a sternly worded letter is just one of the many reasons that I will always think you're swell.

In the spirit in which it is intended,

ZORN REPLY -- The law doesn't make distinctions between politicians and others vis a vis protest. Which is good. But it does make time and place restrictions on protesting. I think the home should be out of bounds, even if it's the home of someone dreadful, like Rev. Phelps. (Unless the home and primary place of business are the same, in which case..)

Protesting on the public street in front of a politician home is perfectly acceptable.

More and more today, our leaders hide behind security and never come in contact with average folks. Even Congressman today attend fewer town hall meetings so as to not be confronted by the angry massess.
As an average citizen, try and get an appointment with the mayor. Totally impossible.

Leaders lead the people, which means that they have to deal with and listen to the people once in awhile.

So long as the protest is peaceful and on public property, it is totally in-bounds.

By the way, in Indiana, we would not be able to protest in front of Sen Lugars home. He lives in Virginia. I am actually a democrat who likes Lugar. But I think this issue is going to cost him this next election. Maybe even in the primary.

I was in Ravenswood this weekend and there were way too many potholes. It appears that even the mayor doesn't have enough pull to get those potholes fixed. Maybe that's why the mayor was not home on Monday- he was trying to get the potholes fixed.

---It's interesting that protesters outside the homes of public officials is wrong, yet reporters and their cameras (helicopters in some occasions) can hang around an official's home as long as they feel there's a story involved. I'm sure Blagojevich's family and his neighbors didn't appreciate the intrusion into their lives, either.

There was nary a peep out of anyone when it came to Blago's sanctuary being violated. The press trampled all over his privacy.

ZORN REPLY -- I've never been a fan of the Blago-home stakeout coverage... absent Blago making himself unavailable to the microphones or only making himself available at home, I never thought the disruption to that neighborhood justified the journalistic purpose, such as it was. That said, there is a difference between media coverage and protest activity.

One of the supporting pillars of democracy is supposed to be that elected public officials are accountable and available to their consitutents. King Rahm has flouted that from day one (actually, well before he was elected, which is why I don't have any sympathy for anyone who voted for him). If he wants to act like a king, then it's appropriate for the masses to visit him at his royal palace. And for an issue as important as my child's education, as AdamH said, I'll meet him in the shower if need be. If his neighbors don't like it, maybe *they* can get through to His Majesty.

Oh, and, yes, Wendy makes an excellent point. Not only about the media invading public figures' homes, but private ones too. I think it's kind of richly ironic that people from the Fourth Estate, which thrives on being the first to shove a camera and microphone in some tragedy-survivor's face, would be tut-tutting about people bringing their legitimate public concerns to the home of an elected official.

ZORN REPLY -- Actually, you'll find that most mainstream media reporters don't shove things into the faces of tragedy survivors... interview requests are nearly always handled with sensitivity and, believe it or not, many, many times the survivors WANT to talk, want to memorialize and validate their loss in the way that so much else is memorialized and validated .. through the media.
Do we ask. Yes. Are some people appalled that we've asked? Yes. Do we badger or pursue them after that? Very, very rarely and certainly never at the Tribune that I can recall.

Obviously our liberal commenters believe they have a "right" to protest outside of a politicians home becasue they elect the politicians. .

Is it safe to assume you also believe that "right" extends to protesting outside the homes of private citizens who happen to run large companies like Exxon or Paul Krugman's former company, Enron.

Would you grant the same right to ultra-conservative protestors who gather outside the homes of Planned Parenthood executives and Hollywood celebrities who voice political views and the teachers we pay to teach our children? Those teachers are our employees, aren't they?

Lexi - This is why I believe I have a right (no quotes) to protest outside a politician's home:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the ... right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

You have read that before, no? And if you read it carefully, it should explain to you why politicians' homes are fair game while the others you listed are not (except that I would say that if corporations want to control the government through buying politicians, then perhaps the homes of their executives should be fair game too).

Oh my. Are the streets not public Eric? If you are a public figure your give up your right to anonymity. Rham knew what he was getting in for when he ran for Mayor having the mess about his residency and having his house on the news to prove it! Eric, if you run for Mayor they will picket outside your house too! Oh, by the way, How many of the Tribune reporters were there? How many reporters sat outside old Rob's house for months? Hypocrit!!!

Tom - I'll agree with you that the protesters shouldn't have been on private property, but that article was quite a lot of hyperventilating. "Mob scene"? Really? It looks like a lot of people peacefully standing around with signs listening to some people talk about getting thrown out of their homes. And the article is so worried about Mr. Baer's poor teenage son left alone at home who was so frightened he locked himself in the bathroom. I'll grant the poor boy has probably never seen so many black people in one place before, let alone so close to home, but if he's that easily frightened, maybe Dad shouldn't be leaving him home alone in the first place.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm sure you realize that the Supreme Court has decided that the right to free speech and the right to assemble are not unlimited rights. On second thought, no, you probably don't know that.

Your final thought is hilarious. Summary: People shouldn't be allowed to protest outside the homes of corporations, unless I agree with the protestors.

If you feel inclined to persist in your "logic", it must be true that you agree with the following statement:

If non-profit corporations and unions want to control the government through buying politicians, then perhaps the homes of their executives should be fair game too.

--"People shouldn't be allowed to protest outside the homes of corporations, unless I agree with the protestors."

Wow, reading comprehension is really a weak point on the right, isn't it? Where on earth did you get that? I'm saying that if corporations want to buy the government, then they buy the headaches that come with it, including being protested against. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with them. Feel free to protest outside Bill Gates' or George Soros' house if you'd like.

As far as unions, they aren't "buying" any politicians because they can't afford them. If you combine political contributions from all the unions, it probably comes close to the least of the big five that are buying the current election. And as far as non-profits, it depends on what you mean. Are you talking about super-PACs? By all means they should expect protesters on their front lawn. Or are you talking about organizations that actually do good in the world? If that, see unions above.

"Tom - I'll agree with you that the protesters shouldn't have been on private property, but that article was quite a lot of hyperventilating. "Mob scene"? Really? It looks like a lot of people peacefully standing around with signs listening to some people talk about getting thrown out of their homes. And the article is so worried about Mr. Baer's poor teenage son left alone at home who was so frightened he locked himself in the bathroom. I'll grant the poor boy has probably never seen so many black people in one place before, let alone so close to home, but if he's that easily frightened, maybe Dad shouldn't be leaving him home alone in the first place."

Dienne: Why on earth did you have to bring race up? And I'd love to know how you would feel if a mob of people was bussed in and started protesting in your yard, going up to your door, making lots of noise. Are you saying you wouldn't be a little scared?

lexi: The chart you ref'd has results consistent with a study I led in 2000-01 regarding civil litigation reform while I was at Accenture: the top donors almost uninformly gave to Democrats/liberals, the love that dare not speaketh its name.

I'm inclined to say that protesting belongs at the place of business. People are entitled to their privacy.

I find it both fascinating and horrifying that some believe the unborn have constitutional rights while a woman loses her's during the length of her pregnancy. Yet the second after childbirth, these same people usually argue against any form of government assistance for that child to nurture growth, education and medical assistance.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.